Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

"Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you".
"I am being absurd, but no way is it trolling". [paraphrased]
--- dsjpk5

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

The trouble is that after the end of the 1st century the Apostasy changed everything. They translated the scriptures dishonestly, as it is very easy to demonstrate, and if they were prepared to do that, how can anyone trust a word they said?

As Jesus said. He who is unfaithful in what is least will be unfaithful in what is most, and from the end of the 1st century on that is what those who chose to accept the name Christian, given by opposers of the Apostles, were dishonest.

Therefore everything published since the end of the 1st century has to be very suspect indeed.

That is the entire reason that Jehovah started drawing people to his son's side from about 1850 on, since in this time of the end truth is even more vital than it has ever been John 4:23-24.

Incidentally I never said I was surprised, I simply questioned it, as I do everything else, and always have done.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

How does that matter? The NT gospels name him and the authors were Greek.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

How is that relevant to him being named Jesus in the Greek language NT gospels which were written long after his death?

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

What gospel and how is that relevant to the NT gospels where the name Jesus is first recorded (ignoring the Pauline epistles)?

The trouble is that after the end of the 1st century the Apostasy changed everything. They translated the scriptures dishonestly, as it is very easy to demonstrate, and if they were prepared to do that, how can anyone trust a word they said?

What scriptures and how would this be relevant?

As Jesus said. He who is unfaithful in what is least will be unfaithful in what is most, and from the end of the 1st century on that is what those who chose to accept the name Christian, given by opposers of the Apostles, were dishonest.

Relevance?

Therefore everything published since the end of the 1st century has to be very suspect indeed.

If you say so.

That is the entire reason that Jehovah started drawing people to his son's side from about 1850 on, since in this time of the end truth is even more vital than it has ever been John 4:23-24.

What?

Incidentally I never said I was surprised, I simply questioned it, as I do everything else, and always have done.

Fine, but does your questioning involve actually listening to anyone else's arguments and opinions and responding appropriately? I see no evidence of that. You seem to be off in a world of your own.

"Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you".
"I am being absurd, but no way is it trolling". [paraphrased]
--- dsjpk5

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

You just said on another thread that there is "nothing in a name", basically. Now here you are arguing about the significance and importance of a name.

Your "arguments" remind me of the guy who had a cute, cuddly little lion cub - until it matured and turned on him.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

Jesus preached to a Jewish audience, but he did not preach a "Hebrew Gospel", whatever that is. There is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel" as far as the NT is concerned.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

Jesus preached to a Jewish audience, but he did not preach a "Hebrew Gospel", whatever that is. There is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel" as far as the NT is concerned.

Actually that is precisely what he taught.

Everything he, and the Apostles after him taught came from the scriptures, and the only scriptures they had at that take were the Hebrew Scriptures which you falsely call the OT, even though it is the entire basis of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and is quoted time and again in those pages.

When Christ taught in the synagogue he read from the scroll of Isaiah.

The whole of the sermon on the mount is based on the Hebrew Scriptures, mostly on the Mosaic Law in fact. True he modified it slightly, but only to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33, and teach us how, with Jehovah's help, we can put the Law in our hearts.

What do you imagine Paul was referring to when he wrote, (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)"16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Notice that he is in fact saying that the only thing anyone needs to be completely trained is the Hebrew Scriptures.

A large part of your scriptural ignorance is down to the fact that you know so little about what Christ and the Apostles taught from. If you do not understand the Hebrew Scriptures you do not have the blindest chance of understanding what the Kingdom is, was and will be., so how can you preach the "Good News of the Kingdom" as Christ commanded?

In fact it explains every one of your multitude of errors.

Once again Scripture 1, Anna 0.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

You just said on another thread that there is "nothing in a name", basically. Now here you are arguing about the significance and importance of a name.

All names in scripture have significance, which is the entire point of the topic "What's in a name".

However it remains true that a name is nothing if you don't live up to it. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Hence, whatever they were called in the past, be it Israel, the Israel of God, or Jehovah's Witnesses.

All have been, and are witnesses of Jehovah in imitation of Christ (Revelation 3:14)

Your "arguments" remind me of the guy who had a cute, cuddly little lion cub - until it matured and turned on him.

Except that it is always you that scripture turns on, lol,. never me.

As always scripture 1 Anna 0

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

Jesus preached to a Jewish audience, but he did not preach a "Hebrew Gospel", whatever that is. There is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel" as far as the NT is concerned.

Actually that is precisely what he taught.

Everything he, and the Apostles after him taught came from the scriptures, and the only scriptures they had at that take were the Hebrew Scriptures which you falsely call the OT, even though it is the entire basis of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and is quoted time and again in those pages.

When Christ taught in the synagogue he read from the scroll of Isaiah.

The whole of the sermon on the mount is based on the Hebrew Scriptures, mostly on the Mosaic Law in fact. True he modified it slightly, but only to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33, and teach us how, with Jehovah's help, we can put the Law in our hearts.

What do you imagine Paul was referring to when he wrote, (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)"16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Notice that he is in fact saying that the only thing anyone needs to be completely trained is the Hebrew Scriptures.

A large part of your scriptural ignorance is down to the fact that you know so little about what Christ and the Apostles taught from. If you do not understand the Hebrew Scriptures you do not have the blindest chance of understanding what the Kingdom is, was and will be., so how can you preach the "Good News of the Kingdom" as Christ commanded?

In fact it explains every one of your multitude of errors.

Once again Scripture 1, Anna 0.

The fact that Jesus and others taught from the Hebrew scriptures does not mean that they preached a "Hebrew Gospel", as opposed to a "Non-Hebrew Gospel." If so, find the phrase in the NT.

There is ONE gospel - and it is for all. There is no such thing as any "Hebrew Gospel."

Everything he, and the Apostles after him taught came from the scriptures, and the only scriptures they had at that take were the Hebrew Scriptures which you falsely call the OT, even though it is the entire basis of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and is quoted time and again in those pages.

Don't be ridiculous, MCB. The apostles were illiterate fishermen. If Jesus really was a carpenter then he was illiterate too.

The reason the gospels have Jesus with knowledge of Hebrew scripture is because those words were put in his mouth by the authors of those works and they were literate. They used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) as I stated earlier.

When Christ taught in the synagogue he read from the scroll of Isaiah.

Nonsense. A carpenter could not read.

The whole of the sermon on the mount is based on the Hebrew Scriptures, mostly on the Mosaic Law in fact. True he modified it slightly, but only to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33, and teach us how, with Jehovah's help, we can put the Law in our hearts.

Words put in his mouth by the gospel writers.

"Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you".
"I am being absurd, but no way is it trolling". [paraphrased]
--- dsjpk5

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

You just said on another thread that there is "nothing in a name", basically. Now here you are arguing about the significance and importance of a name.

All names in scripture have significance, which is the entire point of the topic "What's in a name".

Really? Then give us a dissertation on the name Lazarus in the narrative in Luke 16. Here it is for you:

" ... and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; yea, even the dogs come and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom"

I'll guarantee you that you'll have to be the MadClown again and offer one of your pitiful explanations along the lines of "Oh, the significance is unknown" or "Well, it meant something back then, but now we don't know what it meant." I'll guarantee this: you won't have an answer. You'll ramble off an excuse or two.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

Jesus is the English translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua and later Greek and Latin name. Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name lesous.

Because the names (Jesus and Jehovah) are English translations of proper nouns their associated meanings are lost. That might explain why people who pray to those names also get back a meaningless response. It's tit for tat. Paradoxically the Jews who got the names right paid the heaviest price.There is plenty to a name.

Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, said that recent developments suggest that we will soon be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illnesshttp://m.digitaljournal.com...

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

Jesus preached to a Jewish audience, but he did not preach a "Hebrew Gospel", whatever that is. There is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel" as far as the NT is concerned.

Actually that is precisely what he taught.

Everything he, and the Apostles after him taught came from the scriptures, and the only scriptures they had at that take were the Hebrew Scriptures which you falsely call the OT, even though it is the entire basis of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and is quoted time and again in those pages.

When Christ taught in the synagogue he read from the scroll of Isaiah.

The whole of the sermon on the mount is based on the Hebrew Scriptures, mostly on the Mosaic Law in fact. True he modified it slightly, but only to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33, and teach us how, with Jehovah's help, we can put the Law in our hearts.

What do you imagine Paul was referring to when he wrote, (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)"16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Notice that he is in fact saying that the only thing anyone needs to be completely trained is the Hebrew Scriptures.

A large part of your scriptural ignorance is down to the fact that you know so little about what Christ and the Apostles taught from. If you do not understand the Hebrew Scriptures you do not have the blindest chance of understanding what the Kingdom is, was and will be., so how can you preach the "Good News of the Kingdom" as Christ commanded?

In fact it explains every one of your multitude of errors.

Once again Scripture 1, Anna 0.

As soon as he's challenged he stops calling it the hebrew gospel and thinks no one will notice. What a dishonest little worm.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

You just said on another thread that there is "nothing in a name", basically. Now here you are arguing about the significance and importance of a name.

All names in scripture have significance, which is the entire point of the topic "What's in a name".

Really? Then give us a dissertation on the name Lazarus in the narrative in Luke 16. Here it is for you:

" ... and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; yea, even the dogs come and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom"

I'll guarantee you that you'll have to be the MadClown again and offer one of your pitiful explanations along the lines of "Oh, the significance is unknown" or "Well, it meant something back then, but now we don't know what it meant." I'll guarantee this: you won't have an answer. You'll ramble off an excuse or two.

Why are you so hung up on that name and it's use?

The significance is unknown, I can say no more than that. Jesus does not explain why he chooses, unusually, to use an actual name in that passage.

Nor why he chooses to use the name of his friend who dies and who Jesus brings back to life.

I only know that the illustration does not mean what you wish it to mean for the simple reason that it cannot possibly do so, since scripture continually refers to death as sleep, a state of complete unconsciousness.

Not only is it described that over and again in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus also refers to it as sleep, and even when Stephen dies he is said to have fallen asleep.

Of course this only refers to the first death, the one we know currently from which there has been one resurrection, the first, and from which there will be a more general resurrection after Armageddon.

The second death is continually referred to as an act of complete destruction, as Gehenna, or as the Lake of Fire, into which the first death, death as we know it, is cast along with Hell, Hades or the grave, depending on which translation you accept.

I know it is not what you want to believe, but since when did what any human want to believe count for anything?

It is only what Jehovah and Christ believe that counts.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

The gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking authors and for a Greek speaking audience (even if they were diaspora Jews). When they relied on the OT they were looking at the Septuagint. Why would you be surprised that the Greek name was used?

Because Jews was born a Jew, and preached to Jews.

You are making an unwarranted assumption then. All Hebrews read their scriptures n Hebrew and Aramaic, and still do normally, or so Jews tell me.

Since the Gospel preached by Jesus was a Hebrew Gospel, preached to Hebrew Speakers.

Jesus preached to a Jewish audience, but he did not preach a "Hebrew Gospel", whatever that is. There is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel" as far as the NT is concerned.

Actually that is precisely what he taught.

Everything he, and the Apostles after him taught came from the scriptures, and the only scriptures they had at that take were the Hebrew Scriptures which you falsely call the OT, even though it is the entire basis of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and is quoted time and again in those pages.

When Christ taught in the synagogue he read from the scroll of Isaiah.

The whole of the sermon on the mount is based on the Hebrew Scriptures, mostly on the Mosaic Law in fact. True he modified it slightly, but only to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33, and teach us how, with Jehovah's help, we can put the Law in our hearts.

What do you imagine Paul was referring to when he wrote, (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)"16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Notice that he is in fact saying that the only thing anyone needs to be completely trained is the Hebrew Scriptures.

A large part of your scriptural ignorance is down to the fact that you know so little about what Christ and the Apostles taught from. If you do not understand the Hebrew Scriptures you do not have the blindest chance of understanding what the Kingdom is, was and will be., so how can you preach the "Good News of the Kingdom" as Christ commanded?

In fact it explains every one of your multitude of errors.

Once again Scripture 1, Anna 0.

As soon as he's challenged he stops calling it the hebrew gospel and thinks no one will notice. What a dishonest little worm.

I have never called it the Hebrew Gospel, at least not intentionally.

I call it as I always have the Hebrew Scriptures, which is what is usually wrongly called the Old Testament.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

You just said on another thread that there is "nothing in a name", basically. Now here you are arguing about the significance and importance of a name.

All names in scripture have significance, which is the entire point of the topic "What's in a name".

Really? Then give us a dissertation on the name Lazarus in the narrative in Luke 16. Here it is for you:

" ... and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; yea, even the dogs come and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom"

I'll guarantee you that you'll have to be the MadClown again and offer one of your pitiful explanations along the lines of "Oh, the significance is unknown" or "Well, it meant something back then, but now we don't know what it meant." I'll guarantee this: you won't have an answer. You'll ramble off an excuse or two.

Why are you so hung up on that name and it's use?

The significance is unknown, I can say no more than that. Jesus does not explain why he chooses, unusually, to use an actual name in that passage.

Nor why he chooses to use the name of his friend who dies and who Jesus brings back to life.

I only know that the illustration does not mean what you wish it to mean for the simple reason that it cannot possibly do so, since scripture continually refers to death as sleep, a state of complete unconsciousness.

Not only is it described that over and again in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus also refers to it as sleep, and even when Stephen dies he is said to have fallen asleep.

Of course this only refers to the first death, the one we know currently from which there has been one resurrection, the first, and from which there will be a more general resurrection after Armageddon.

The second death is continually referred to as an act of complete destruction, as Gehenna, or as the Lake of Fire, into which the first death, death as we know it, is cast along with Hell, Hades or the grave, depending on which translation you accept.

I know it is not what you want to believe, but since when did what any human want to believe count for anything?

It is only what Jehovah and Christ believe that counts.

So what does Jehovah and Christ believe that is different from what the authors of the bible said the two believe? Reading the same bible and coming up with different interpretations makes the scriptures even less credible.You have been claiming you get your message directly from Jehovah and the Holy Spirit. But then you point to the scriptures which are the works of dead men in the past.Shouldn't your IQ go up if God is talking to you? You cannot even support yourself without government assistance. You tried to beg for donations from the Internet. You live alone with a dog. Even the Jehovah Witnesses thought you were trash and disfellowshipped and shunned you. Stupid is what stupid does. Why are you dragging God into your failed life?

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

It's probably because they wanted all the new testament people to have names that weren't in the old testament. Joshua was already taken, so they went for Jesus.

Similar thing happened to all the "Jacobs" from the Bible, who we now refer to as "James"

"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11

At 3/21/2016 10:54:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:Something crossed my mind last light, and I don't think I have even thought about it before.

Why Jesus? or to use his original Greek name Iesus?

He was born a Jew so why does scripture barely mention his Jewish name Jeshua or Yeshua, depending on how you choose to transliterate it.

Is the fact that he is known by his Greek name not his Jewish one significant? I suspect it is. In fact I suspect it is very significant indeed considering he was gathering the basis for a new nation, a new Israel. (Galatians 6:16).

His name was Michael.

That was the name of the spirit who became incarnate in his body.

You just said on another thread that there is "nothing in a name", basically. Now here you are arguing about the significance and importance of a name.

All names in scripture have significance, which is the entire point of the topic "What's in a name".

Really? Then give us a dissertation on the name Lazarus in the narrative in Luke 16. Here it is for you:

" ... and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; yea, even the dogs come and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom"

I'll guarantee you that you'll have to be the MadClown again and offer one of your pitiful explanations along the lines of "Oh, the significance is unknown" or "Well, it meant something back then, but now we don't know what it meant." I'll guarantee this: you won't have an answer. You'll ramble off an excuse or two.

Why are you so hung up on that name and it's use?

The significance is unknown, I can say no more than that. Jesus does not explain why he chooses, unusually, to use an actual name in that passage.

Nor why he chooses to use the name of his friend who dies and who Jesus brings back to life.

Why, because his friend Lazarus actually existed, as did the one in Luke 16.

Anna: "I'll guarantee you that you'll have to be the MadClown again and offer one of your pitiful explanations along the lines of "Oh, the significance is unknown"

MadClown: "The significance is unknown, I can say no more than that."

I believe I'd have been ashamed to be forced into saying exactly what everyone knew you'd have to say. Can you give us some other examples of Jesus using specific names of people who didn't exist? Or is Luke 16 the only known case of such a usage? LMAO